I've replied in the Int. thread - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7625&p=2441239#p2441239arvin wrote:As per this link, Group Captain HV Thakur, deputy chief test pilot, HAL says
Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
^^^
The radome looks circular. Not like AMCA's and definitely not of Mk.2.
The radome looks circular. Not like AMCA's and definitely not of Mk.2.
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
Someone in that tweet link said it was TEDBF, that is why I posted it in here.
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
^^^
Sorry, missed that. He further tweeted:
Sorry, missed that. He further tweeted:
Just going by first TEDBF model shared as the one of the several being considered that 'looked okay', I doubt if this is how the radome would be. It was also said that TEDBF "may imbibe technologies being developed for the IAF's Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) but will not be a stealth fighter in the same class." So it is a possibility, but I wonder if the saw-tooth circular radome shown above would serve much purpose.We'll campaign so hard in Twitter hashtags and make a nationwide consensus about TEDBF and it's top-class features we want. We will manipulate their plan of "no retractable IFR in TEDBF" (if any) by doing so and we'll succeed.
9:22 AM · Jun 28, 2020
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
Its just fan art, lets just enjoy the visuals and not try to over analyse it.
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
This is a good time to have an engine bake off and get F414, EJ200, M88 in a contest, like we did for Tejas Mk2 (between EJ200 and F414).
Just too nervous about all engines being in Khan basket.
Just too nervous about all engines being in Khan basket.
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
There is a USN War study on the carrier in IN doctrine. A lengthy study.In short it questions the efficacy of our " light" carriers as the VikA and new Vikrant, in carrying out full spectrum carrier warfare as practised by the USN.Reasons are the foll:
STOBAR launch,lesser payload carried,range too.
Too few aircraft ( around 30 to 40 max) to undertake comprehensive attacks from the sea against inland land targets.50% of those serviceable will be on air defence duty.
The dedicated anti-ship aircraft of the enemy in prosecuting attacks against the CBG/ CTF. Equipped with LR ASMs, and supported by AWACS . This pushes the enemy's defensive boundary outwards significantly. The cost factor of a CV,carrier air group,plus escorts,et al., One could get 10 AIP subs for the cost of just one carrier,etc.
In brief, the best use of IN CVs are to escort and protect convoys of our merchant fleet,tankers,etc. and strike at enemy surface groups .Sea control. Limited strikes at land targets could be carried out with exg. aircraft using stand-off PGMs. The prosecution of enemy subs too and using the extra advantage of land based aircraft for air cover,AEW, etc.Interdicting enemy long- endurance UUVs on the surface and underwater.
The vulnerability of carriers from new supersonic missiles is another factor. Blockading Paki coastlines will be more difficult from now on,a task better suited to sub warfare and mining approaches.
Any new TEDBF will have to fit within the footprint of the 29K and lifts of our two CVs.There is v.little likelihood of the 3rd. CV getting the nod before 2025,given the Chin gambit in Ladakh and elsewhere.The IA and IAF will get first pick and understandly so.Whatever funds the IN gets will first go to the sub service, hundreds of ASW and LUH helos reqd. and hopefully LR supersonic maritime strike bombers.
STOBAR launch,lesser payload carried,range too.
Too few aircraft ( around 30 to 40 max) to undertake comprehensive attacks from the sea against inland land targets.50% of those serviceable will be on air defence duty.
The dedicated anti-ship aircraft of the enemy in prosecuting attacks against the CBG/ CTF. Equipped with LR ASMs, and supported by AWACS . This pushes the enemy's defensive boundary outwards significantly. The cost factor of a CV,carrier air group,plus escorts,et al., One could get 10 AIP subs for the cost of just one carrier,etc.
In brief, the best use of IN CVs are to escort and protect convoys of our merchant fleet,tankers,etc. and strike at enemy surface groups .Sea control. Limited strikes at land targets could be carried out with exg. aircraft using stand-off PGMs. The prosecution of enemy subs too and using the extra advantage of land based aircraft for air cover,AEW, etc.Interdicting enemy long- endurance UUVs on the surface and underwater.
The vulnerability of carriers from new supersonic missiles is another factor. Blockading Paki coastlines will be more difficult from now on,a task better suited to sub warfare and mining approaches.
Any new TEDBF will have to fit within the footprint of the 29K and lifts of our two CVs.There is v.little likelihood of the 3rd. CV getting the nod before 2025,given the Chin gambit in Ladakh and elsewhere.The IA and IAF will get first pick and understandly so.Whatever funds the IN gets will first go to the sub service, hundreds of ASW and LUH helos reqd. and hopefully LR supersonic maritime strike bombers.
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
M88 is not in the same thrust class as the other two. TEDBF needs quick decisions and a relatively short development timeline. We don;t have time for an engine bake-off.srin wrote:This is a good time to have an engine bake off and get F414, EJ200, M88 in a contest, like we did for Tejas Mk2 (between EJ200 and F414).
Just too nervous about all engines being in Khan basket.
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
Just order more of F414, in exchange for healthy offsets in India, availability of spares and quick servicing. Standardising on few components simplifies the supply chain, cross cannibalization when needed (let's say future sanctions) and most importantly maintenance and skilled manpower logistics.
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
Not aware of US study on carrier in Indian doctrine (!); there have been enough on carrier in US doctrine; from which the observations can be carried over.Philip wrote:There is a USN War study on the carrier in IN doctrine. A lengthy study.In short it questions the efficacy of our " light" carriers as the VikA and new Vikrant, in carrying out full spectrum carrier warfare as practised by the USN.Reasons are the foll:
STOBAR launch,lesser payload carried,range too.
Too few aircraft ( around 30 to 40 max) to undertake comprehensive attacks from the sea against inland land targets.50% of those serviceable will be on air defence duty.
The dedicated anti-ship aircraft of the enemy in prosecuting attacks against the CBG/ CTF. Equipped with LR ASMs, and supported by AWACS . This pushes the enemy's defensive boundary outwards significantly. The cost factor of a CV,carrier air group,plus escorts,et al., One could get 10 AIP subs for the cost of just one carrier,etc.
In brief, the best use of IN CVs are to escort and protect convoys of our merchant fleet,tankers,etc. and strike at enemy surface groups .Sea control. Limited strikes at land targets could be carried out with exg. aircraft using stand-off PGMs. The prosecution of enemy subs too and using the extra advantage of land based aircraft for air cover,AEW, etc.Interdicting enemy long- endurance UUVs on the surface and underwater.
The vulnerability of carriers from new supersonic missiles is another factor. Blockading Paki coastlines will be more difficult from now on,a task better suited to sub warfare and mining approaches.
Any new TEDBF will have to fit within the footprint of the 29K and lifts of our two CVs.There is v.little likelihood of the 3rd. CV getting the nod before 2025,given the Chin gambit in Ladakh and elsewhere.The IA and IAF will get first pick and understandly so.Whatever funds the IN gets will first go to the sub service, hundreds of ASW and LUH helos reqd. and hopefully LR supersonic maritime strike bombers.
The US and thus the USN has vastly different needs and context than India. Simply put, the USN uses supercarriers for power projection and was willing to pay high capital expenses for those large nuclear supercarriers. However at the same time, it was also de-facto creating presence capability with Ambhibious assault based wings (also part of discussion of navy's 355+ ship revisit) and has rehearse surge. Also US carrier kill chain disruption strategy does not copy paste over to India.
At the same time, India has little need of carriers for deep land strikes or as floating airstrips globally. And some of those sortie/power projection ratios can be tilted by smart force multipliers (eg stealth tanking, drones for the recon/intelligence portion of CAP etc, emals etc, longer range missiles or planes, naval awacs/networks) in general.
Baby steps
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
To add to that, IN TEDBF numbers may not favor high leverage. even with 2x engines per plane.schinnas wrote:Just order more of F414, in exchange for healthy offsets in India, availability of spares and quick servicing. Standardising on few components simplifies the supply chain, cross cannibalization when needed (let's say future sanctions) and most importantly maintenance and skilled manpower logistics.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 856
- Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
Navy to get new carrier-based jet by 2032, to replace MiG-29K
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 070823.eceThe Navy is expected to start receiving new twin-engine aircraft carrier-based fighter aircraft being developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) by 2032 and it will be a replacement for the Russian MiG-29K carrier jets in service, a defence source said.
“The Navy is expected to get the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL)-built twin-engine carrier aircraft by 2032. It will replace the MiG-29Ks in service which are scheduled to start going out by 2034,” the source said.
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
From HVT's tweet. It's wing is more of Mirage than Tejas, not double-delta!
This may not be the real design, read through.
This may not be the real design, read through.
Continuing Nilesh Rane's threadHarsh Vardhan Thakur
@hvtiaf
Technologies
#TEDBF #LCA
STABILATOR at the aft end.
Provides Direct Lift Control. A very unique & unconventional technology. Excellent control of the aircraft.
Huge wing compared to Mk-1.
Massive performance, range & endurance.
Always in Beast mode
10:07 AM · Jul 16, 2020
#JustForFun - #NLCA MK2 twin-engine version Smiling face with open mouth #TEDBF
Wings moved outboard to make space for two engines. This increases the length by 0.5m. Larger stabilators and VT due to larger wing and bigger length. Wing area would be close to 52 sq m.
+
In reality, if NLCA Mk2 is to be designed as Twin engined jet, the fuselage shape and wing-fuselage blending would look very different, both on the top and bottom. It could be much cleaner bottom side than the current ugly one of NLCA MK2.
+
So we have one report each from
@delhidefence
and
@livefist
with details on IN's new Naval Fighter program #TEDBF. Interestingly the DDR report mentions #TEDBF would use Vortex Flaps indicating it could be modified version of NLCA MK2, while Livefist report indicates the design
+
could be on the AMCA's lines, likely from one of the many configs studies in the program. There is a third possibility that it could be a modified version of MWF. And forth but least likely possibility that it could be a fresh design, something we have not seen so far.
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
^^^
Another HVT's tweet for the above pic.
Another HVT's tweet for the above pic.
This is the finalised LCA (Navy) Mk-2 Design from the official brochure. Now, Mk-2 is being upgraded with two engines (TEDBF) as is widely known.
Good features will be naturally carried forward, with additional advantages accrued out of two engines.
Apologies for any confusion.
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
Cross post from Mk2
HVT's tweet
HVT's tweet
Optimistically cautious! Love it!Big shoes to fit in.
Tejas Mk-2 will probably be more up-to-date than Rafale, when it enters service. It's really the TEDBF-like, twin-engine-cousin of Mk-2 that'll exceed the teering performance of Rafale.
1:38 PM · Jul 28, 2020
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
This bird will surely beat Rafale in looks and I wish it also outmatched Rafale in capability.
DRDO/ADA or IAF should hire person like Kuntal for their marketing.
https://twitter.com/Kuntal__biswas/stat ... 3115490304
DRDO/ADA or IAF should hire person like Kuntal for their marketing.
https://twitter.com/Kuntal__biswas/stat ... 3115490304
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
These CGI fighter jets look more like a Twin engined variant of Gripen.nash wrote:This bird will surely beat Rafale in looks and I wish it also outmatched Rafale in capability.
DRDO/ADA or IAF should hire person like Kuntal for their marketing.
https://twitter.com/Kuntal__biswas/stat ... 3115490304
The only thing that looks out of place in this rendering is that of the canards. From what i read about TEDBF/ ORCA, the front end of the MWF is going to be used for TEDBF/ORCA. Which i understand would mean that the canards would not be behind the Air Intakes but in front similar to MWF.
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
To me it looks mostly like Mirage 4K, and for a good reason too. It's okay with me if it looks like Mirage 4K and performance is close to Rafale M.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5352
- Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
Exactly so! I want to see those damned levcons and the cranked Delta, which are are so uniquely LCA. My guess is that they have to do canards or something for low speed control...basant wrote:To me it looks mostly like Mirage 4K, and for a good reason too. It's okay with me if it looks like Mirage 4K and performance is close to Rafale M.
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
If it has 2 GE 414 engines, they will have more thrust but consume more fuel than Rafale, we use composites, Rafale also composites. So it will need to carry more Internal fuel for the same range, buts its Payload and acceleration should be better than Rafale. Hopefully Uttam AESA will have higher power output than RBE-2, more T/R modules with better processing capability and hopefully with a longer ranged SFDR.- missile can be lanched with better parameters.
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
Even the Mk2 is going to have canards from what we have learnt. IIRC HVT sir mentioned that canards were considered even for the original Mk1 design initially but were dropped in favor of the cranked delta which was a lower risk alternative as far as creating the control laws for the FBW was concerned. They have far more confidence in their ability now after the experience with the Mk1.Cain Marko wrote: Exactly so! I want to see those damned levcons and the cranked Delta, which are are so uniquely LCA. My guess is that they have to do canards or something for low speed control...
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 673
- Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
I guess TEDBF/ORCA will come with Stabilators instead of Canards...
IIRC, Naval Tejas Mk2 model that was displayed had stabilators... And I guess TEDBF will be based on Naval Tejas Mk2 design...
IIRC, Naval Tejas Mk2 model that was displayed had stabilators... And I guess TEDBF will be based on Naval Tejas Mk2 design...
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
for a prederermined % value of the contract, they decide the contents of the offsets and not us.schinnas wrote:Just order more of F414, in exchange for healthy offsets in India, availability of spares and quick servicing. Standardising on few components simplifies the supply chain, cross cannibalization when needed (let's say future sanctions) and most importantly maintenance and skilled manpower logistics.
Thus far we have got some useless sheet metal work, some LRU racks and boxes, low level FRP and carbon fibre stuff and suchlike.
everyone knows how to play the game and for those new to the game, they either get paid off or shunted out PDQ.
every point that you have made above is exactly what the goras will not give away or allow you to get by way of "offsets".
exactly what great offsets have come to us as part of the rafale contract
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
I enjoy the great Indian paperplane chase! after 4 decades our great achievement has been around 12 LCA MK-1s,of 'late 80s vintage performance.We now want to build a MK-1A,MK-2 now twin-engined,another TEDBF,AMCA,all simultaneously ,gosh! For reminders,the M2K upgrade costing $50M a pop,$2.5B for the 54,is nowhere from completion,a bitter spat between the IAF and HAL for extra labour costs above the $50B! in contrast,all 64-69 MIG-29s are being/have been upgraded for just $900M. MKI upgrades are nowhere on the horizon too. I dare not speak of the IJT (what's that?),for fear of reopening old wounds,but gamely ask where are the engines for these birdies coming from.The phantom Cauvery or what?
Seriously,this is not a flame post,but in the age of CV and hugely downsized eco activity with funds v.scarce,we have to rationalise.A former ACM said yesterday on a Rafale arrival debate,that the aim of the IAF was to REDUCE types of aircraft not increase them! In the decade of 4 stealth aircraft in the air; the F-22,F-35,SU-57 and J-20,the latter two just entering service,with several other nations like SoKo,Japan,Turkey,the EU,UK,Fr. too,all revealing their advanced concepts under development,reinventing the wheel ,4th-gen aircraft that too with expensive desi-built birds (take LCA MK-1 costs for ex.),would be back to the future.
Therefore. to rationaliose the IAF's inventory,the foll. should be a way forward. One LCA type with incremental improvements built in large nos. for cost-effectiveness replacing all old MIG -21 types,full thrust to the AMCA,and the TEDBF only if it going to be stealthy and better than the Rafale-M ,should be our new fighter programmes .Apart from those,upgrades of existing types especially the huge no. of heavyweight SU-30MKIs into Super-Sukhois( BMos /BMos -NG/BMos-H capable),which are the backbone of the fleet.In fact the TEDBF could be a naval variant of the AMCA to reduce both time and development costs and at one stroke give us a naval stealth fighter! I would also plump for a stealth bomber programme like the Ru PAK-DA given the PRC challenge. Our upgraded M2K and MIG-29s can serve us upto 2035,where with concentrated effort they can start being replaced even from 2030 onwards.The progress of our secretive UCAV is unknown.Nevertheless,whatever programmes we ultimately plump for,the absence of engines for the above aircraft would cripple the entire modernisation and future planning of the IAF. This failure to develop a desi fighter engine is the achilles heel of our indigenous aircraft development.We have learnt little from the days of the HF-24.
Seriously,this is not a flame post,but in the age of CV and hugely downsized eco activity with funds v.scarce,we have to rationalise.A former ACM said yesterday on a Rafale arrival debate,that the aim of the IAF was to REDUCE types of aircraft not increase them! In the decade of 4 stealth aircraft in the air; the F-22,F-35,SU-57 and J-20,the latter two just entering service,with several other nations like SoKo,Japan,Turkey,the EU,UK,Fr. too,all revealing their advanced concepts under development,reinventing the wheel ,4th-gen aircraft that too with expensive desi-built birds (take LCA MK-1 costs for ex.),would be back to the future.
Therefore. to rationaliose the IAF's inventory,the foll. should be a way forward. One LCA type with incremental improvements built in large nos. for cost-effectiveness replacing all old MIG -21 types,full thrust to the AMCA,and the TEDBF only if it going to be stealthy and better than the Rafale-M ,should be our new fighter programmes .Apart from those,upgrades of existing types especially the huge no. of heavyweight SU-30MKIs into Super-Sukhois( BMos /BMos -NG/BMos-H capable),which are the backbone of the fleet.In fact the TEDBF could be a naval variant of the AMCA to reduce both time and development costs and at one stroke give us a naval stealth fighter! I would also plump for a stealth bomber programme like the Ru PAK-DA given the PRC challenge. Our upgraded M2K and MIG-29s can serve us upto 2035,where with concentrated effort they can start being replaced even from 2030 onwards.The progress of our secretive UCAV is unknown.Nevertheless,whatever programmes we ultimately plump for,the absence of engines for the above aircraft would cripple the entire modernisation and future planning of the IAF. This failure to develop a desi fighter engine is the achilles heel of our indigenous aircraft development.We have learnt little from the days of the HF-24.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5128
- Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
Yes LCA is 80s vintage BUT Mig29 is fresh new Modern design. So much poison against indigenous platforms.Philip wrote:I enjoy the great Indian paperplane chase! after 4 decades our great achievement has been around 12 LCA MK-1s,of 'late 80s vintage performance.
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
You just came off a ban in May and have been warned and banned numerous times for disparaging the LCA or some other indigenous weapon system while continuing to peddle every Russian piece of equipment the first chance you get. Take a month long vacation. I have no confidence you will learn any lesson this time either.Philip wrote:I enjoy the great Indian paperplane chase! after 4 decades our great achievement has been around 12 LCA MK-1s,of 'late 80s vintage performance.
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
so much wrong with this. so if some country unveils 5th gen fighter we stop production of our own 4th gen? have they all stopped producing any 4th gen fighters?Philip wrote: In the decade of 4 stealth aircraft in the air; the F-22,F-35,SU-57 and J-20,the latter two just entering service,with several other nations like SoKo,Japan,Turkey,the EU,UK,Fr. too,all revealing their advanced concepts under development,reinventing the wheel ,4th-gen aircraft that too with expensive desi-built birds (take LCA MK-1 costs for ex.),would be back to the future.
lets say we concentrate on AMCA and get it ready by 2035, then we will still be a gen behind US/EU which is working on 6th gen birds. so we stop 5th gen and work on 6th gen? all without having the confidence and knowhow of a 4th gen fighter?
kaha se aathe hein ye log?
we have 2 major adversaries. even if we can replace all imports to tackle the "lesser" adversary, we are golden. and all our desi efforts are more than enough for atleast that objective.
support and bring pressure on the govt to go with more desi efforts - even if they are 70% of foreign maal.
we started as minnows in cricket. then developed expertise in spin dept (our strength for a long time)
then one star batsman
then a lot of star batsmen
then a few good pacers
now a lot of good pacers
finally a team that can beat any.
if LCA can start there - composites and design as its strentgh
then add desi missiles (astra)
then add radar (uttam)
then add more weapons (mk2)
then incorporate all these to AMCA
finally a bird that can beat any
but we got to start somewhere.
it takes time - be patient.
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
My view has been a bit different on this. In sometime (sooner than we think in terms of developmental cycles of fighter a/c), 4th gen would have limited utility. We already have Tejas FOC that is very good, Mk1A is almost there and the effort is by HAL and not ADA. We should repurpose the available resources from Mk2 to AMCA, Ghatak and 6th gen. Because at some point we will have to have cutting edge and with the will, pace and resources at our disposal, chances look dim. The reason for 6th gen is that the technologies being developed could be fed into AMCA or it's MLU. In such a scenario, Mk2 will have limited utility considering the cost it will impose on development of 5th gen and unmanned vehicles. Mk2 feels good, and definitely will be an improvement, but its return on investment would be much less than that on other projects. Just my 2p.
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
Best guesstimate of the time it will take to operationalize AMCA is 15-20 years. MK2 and ORCA is a risk management ploy and will be a good defensive platform whenever it is needed.basant wrote:My view has been a bit different on this. In sometime (sooner than we think in terms of developmental cycles of fighter a/c), 4th gen would have limited utility. We already have Tejas FOC that is very good, Mk1A is almost there and the effort is by HAL and not ADA. We should repurpose the available resources from Mk2 to AMCA, Ghatak and 6th gen. Because at some point we will have to have cutting edge and with the will, pace and resources at our disposal, chances look dim. The reason for 6th gen is that the technologies being developed could be fed into AMCA or it's MLU. In such a scenario, Mk2 will have limited utility considering the cost it will impose on development of 5th gen and unmanned vehicles. Mk2 feels good, and definitely will be an improvement, but its return on investment would be much less than that on other projects. Just my 2p.
India would still need a Heavy Jet (May be PAK-FA or its equivalent) down the line
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
USAF just ordered more F15 and USN more F18.basant wrote:My view has been a bit different on this. In sometime (sooner than we think in terms of developmental cycles of fighter a/c), 4th gen would have limited utility. We already have Tejas FOC that is very good, Mk1A is almost there and the effort is by HAL and not ADA. We should repurpose the available resources from Mk2 to AMCA, Ghatak and 6th gen. Because at some point we will have to have cutting edge and with the will, pace and resources at our disposal, chances look dim. The reason for 6th gen is that the technologies being developed could be fed into AMCA or it's MLU. In such a scenario, Mk2 will have limited utility considering the cost it will impose on development of 5th gen and unmanned vehicles. Mk2 feels good, and definitely will be an improvement, but its return on investment would be much less than that on other projects. Just my 2p.
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
Shows that while 5th gen can tip of the sphere 4th gen aircraft with updated avionics will be useful for atleast the next 40 years. Long live Tejas, LCA Mk 2, TEDBF
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
ADA is studying multiple configurations, including the one with the stabilators and one with canards but no stabilators. We'll only get to know sometime next year as to what is the final design configuration that's chosen.LakshmanPST wrote:I guess TEDBF/ORCA will come with Stabilators instead of Canards...
IIRC, Naval Tejas Mk2 model that was displayed had stabilators... And I guess TEDBF will be based on Naval Tejas Mk2 design...
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
^^^
Tejas Mk2 design frozen and Naval Mk2 is no more on cards, courtesy TEDBF. So I doubt stabilators being considered for any of the platforms in design
Tejas Mk2 design frozen and Naval Mk2 is no more on cards, courtesy TEDBF. So I doubt stabilators being considered for any of the platforms in design
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
I wonder who was the man who proposed this design. He was truly a visionary. Had his design been accepted, there would have been no separate 'MK-2', TEDBF, ORCA, AMCA drama. His design combines the current 3 aircrafts into one (four if you consider that this design could be used for UCAV also), -- and he thought of this 10-15 years back! Salute to you sir, whoever you are, wherever you are!
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5128
- Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
Very true, also EJ200 claimed they can increase thrust significantly in next upgraded version + thrust vectoring is also available.srin wrote:This is a good time to have an engine bake off and get F414, EJ200, M88 in a contest, like we did for Tejas Mk2 (between EJ200 and F414).
Just too nervous about all engines being in Khan basket.
We don't want our big part of indigenous fleet grounded due to American sanctions. They are anyway trigger happy in sanctions. See CAATSAW for example.
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
This design was called MCA & First released publically in 1996. I think in an Article by Hormuz Mama.sajaym wrote:I wonder who was the man who proposed this design. He was truly a visionary. Had his design been accepted, there would have been no separate 'MK-2', TEDBF, ORCA, AMCA drama. His design combines the current 3 aircrafts into one (four if you consider that this design could be used for UCAV also), -- and he thought of this 10-15 years back! Salute to you sir, whoever you are, wherever you are!
Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion
Saw air marshal nambiar sirs interview he says the Rafale can super cruise at 1.4 ma h with 4 missiles and drop tank curious if the TEDBF can accomplish the same